Wash. Times reverses meaning of Obama's comments, falsely claiming he "admitted" doctors will bear brunt of spending cuts
SUMMARY: In a June 16 editorial, The Washington Times reversed the meaning of a comment President Obama made in his speech before the AMA, falsely claiming he "admitted" to the AMA that savings from health-care reform will be "coming off your backs."
In a June 16 editorial, The Washington Times doctored a quote by President Obama in his speech before the American Medical Association (AMA) to support its false claim that Obama "admitted" to the AMA that savings from health-care reform will be "coming off your backs." The Times wrote of Obama's June 15 speech, "[T]he president reiterated his promise to save '$313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending.' His line was greeted by stony silence from the AMA. Mr. Obama understood why and even admitted, 'Today's Medicare rates will be applied broadly in a way that means our cost savings are coming off your backs.' " In fact, Obama said: "Now, I know that there's some concern about a public option. Even within this organization there is healthy debate about it. In particular, I understand that you are concerned that today's Medicare rates, which many of you already feel are too low, will be applied broadly in a way that means our cost savings are coming off your backs. And these are legitimate concerns, but they're ones, I believe, that can be overcome" (emphasis added).
Obama then said the following:
OBAMA: With reform, we will ensure that you are being reimbursed in a thoughtful way that's tied to patient outcomes, instead of relying on yearly negotiations about the Sustainable Growth Rate formula that's based on politics and the immediate state of the federal budget in any given year.
And I just want to point out the alternative to such reform is a world where health care costs grow at an unsustainable rate. And if you don't think that's going to threaten your reimbursements and the stability of our health care system, you haven't been paying attention. So the public option is not your enemy; it is your friend, I believe.
From Obama's June 15 remarks at the AMA conference:
OBAMA: You will have a chance, under what we've proposed, to take part in what we're calling a Health Insurance Exchange. This Exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that's best for you and your family -- the same way, by the way, that federal employees can do, from a postal worker to a member of Congress. You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. Again, this is for people who aren't happy with their current plan. If you like what you're getting, keep it. Nobody's forcing you to shift. But if you're not, this gives you some new options. And I believe one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force -- so that we can force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.
Now, I know that there's some concern about a public option. Even within this organization there is healthy debate about it. In particular, I understand that you are concerned that today's Medicare rates, which many of you already feel are too low, will be applied broadly in a way that means our cost savings are coming off your backs. And these are legitimate concerns, but they're ones, I believe, that can be overcome. As I stated earlier, the reforms we propose to reimbursement are to reward best practices, focus on patient care, not on the current piecework reimbursements. What we seek is more stability and a health care system that's on a sounder financial footing.
And the fact is these reforms need to take place regardless of whether there's a public option or not. With reform, we will ensure that you are being reimbursed in a thoughtful way that's tied to patient outcomes, instead of relying on yearly negotiations about the Sustainable Growth Rate formula that's based on politics and the immediate state of the federal budget in any given year.
And I just want to point out the alternative to such reform is a world where health care costs grow at an unsustainable rate. And if you don't think that's going to threaten your reimbursements and the stability of our health care system, you haven't been paying attention. So the public option is not your enemy; it is your friend, I believe.
From the June 16 Washington Times editorial:
Boos and awkward silences marked President Obama's speech at Monday's American Medical Association meeting in Chicago, and for good reason.
Not only did he refuse to support caps for malpractice suits, but he said his administration would undercut how much doctors make. In Monday's AMA address and another speech on Saturday, the president reiterated his promise to save "$313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending." His line was greeted by stony silence from the AMA. Mr. Obama understood why and even admitted, "Today's Medicare rates will be applied broadly in a way that means our cost savings are coming off your backs."
The government is good at "saving" money by simply reimbursing Medicare and Medicaid providers for less than their cost. It is essentially a tax that the government imposes -- a tax that doctors and hospitals pay for staying in business. But this tax raises doctors' and hospitals' costs, forcing them to charge private patients more to compensate for the lost Medicare and Medicaid revenue.
I'm sure people will read their take and goto work, telling everyone, "Barack said it!" The lie is halfway around the world before the truth has put its shoes on.
They changed the entire meaning of Obama's statement.
And tell me what the Bushites pushed through without saying there was a crisis. Remember the WMDs? How bout forest fires that "necessitated" the need for the "Healthy" Forests Initiative? Remember that hit?
Need more? How bout the crisis that they solved by allowing the federal government into Terri Schiavo's end of life decision?
Magical thinking.
Try a few Facts.
I am beginning to understand your thinking. When faced with reality that you don't like, you retreat to Republican talking points, make ridiculous claims that have no basis in fact, call people names, and bring up irrelevant things like illegal immigrants to bolster your "facts." And you think we should act like your commentary is legitimate because...
At least North Korea knows how to protect their borders.
That's right, people are falling all over themselves to get into North Korea. You're an idiot.
whattodo also asks: Where is the crisis?
How about all the bankruptcies caused by health care expenses by people who already have insurance? Please read up on it.
The problems here include doctors who are paid a fee for service, and then book more patients, leading to more revenue. They aren't paid for outcomes which would reduce costs.
Yes, tort reform would help but only if it's coupled with license reform. If a doctor loses a suit, he loses his license for a time.
Pharmacy companies have gotten a windfall form ust Medicare Part D, thanks to GW and company.
Insurers get to set prices and select patients, they have an incentive not to pay and to delay payment (cash flow anyone?) as well as refuse service.
The public option may be a well-meaning attempt to start a process of reform, but it's a sop to insurers, doctors and drug companies. Single payer, now, is the only solution.
Oh, and Obama is not increasing the national debt from 10T to 290T in one year. You have nothing right, not even that. Grow up.
My question is why would anyone be convinced by reading an editorial written by people with such little regard for the truth?
Um...pardon me, but isn't it a fact that 40% or more of what we pay for our insurance coverage RIGHT NOW goes to cover the costs of uninsured patients who come to the hospital ER, often having let their problem grow into a much more expensive treatment mode because they had no coverage?
I actually believe we need pay per outcome vs. pay per test/procedure. It will cut into specialists pay (I'm an "OFYNAMG specialist, I order a billion tests for each patient and I make a brazillion bucks a year) but will likely raise the pay for general practitioners, which we are lacking of severely right now.
It will probably force (although it will save them money) private insurance to pay the same way too, since I assume doctors won't be able to refuse the public option coverage.
I would also favor deregulation of the private companies (in terms of what they offer and where they offer it, etc) after this occurs, so that they can decide how to be most competitive on the market.
President Obama, please please please hire the best healthcare-industry CEO available to run this. It needs to be efficient, cost-effective, fast, and reliable...a failure like medicare or SS would be a disaster of epic preportions, and we could lose an entire generation of doctors in the process.
Now, in your post, you said, and I quote, "is a". From that, You must mean that your post "is a" complete misunderstanding of every concept that was actually mentioned in the comment containing the snippet you pulled out at random to try and make a point you had no clue about.
Wow. Making stuff up is much easier than research. Now I know why the neo-morons do it.
And these are legitimate concerns, but they're ones, I believe, that can be overcome"
Simpleminded is no way to go through life, son.
And feel free to correct me anytime. I'm not perfect.
"Now, I know that there's some concern about a public option. Even within this organization there is healthy debate about it. In particular, I understand that you are concerned that today's Medicare rates, which many of you already feel are too low, will be applied broadly in a way that means our cost savings are coming off your backs.
So your quote was out of context. I also think Beck is an idiot, a hatemonger and in desperate need of a Haldol/Thorazine cocktail. The MMFA article on his show was not dishonest in the way your post was. Beck DID give legitimacy to the whole are there FEMA camp tinfoil hat nonsense. MMFA did NOT twist his words.
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Sure.
BECK: I'm tired of hearing -- I wanted to debunk them. Well, we've now for several days done research on them. I can't debunk them. And we're going to carry the story tonight.
KILMEADE: I don't know anything about them, so --
BECK: It is -- it is our government. If you trust our government, it's fine. If you have any kind of fear that we might be headed towards a totalitarian state, look out, buckle up. There is something going on in our country that is -- ain't good.
----
Krugman:"Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news -- and give it daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that FEMA might be building concentration camps of the Obama administration's "totalitarian" agenda." (all emphasis mine)
I don't know how you can claim that he wasn't warning people that FEMA might be building these camps when he said that and when he had Ron Paul on talking about what a legitimate concern it was. Whether he said he personally believed it was happening or not, he's still giving an absurd story legitimacy. If he genuinely wanted to debunk the story, he shouldn't have mentioned it at all until he actually had the research done, as opposed to talking about how we're heading towards totalitarianism and then saying "I can't debunk them".